[Colonol Dekker]

 

[Rictor]

Considering Zarqawi may have been dead for months, if not years, I'll take this with a grain of salt. I remember one Chechen leader was reported dead seven times before he was actually killed.

[karajorma]

the Saddam / shia loyalists, the Sunni groups (such as Al-Sadrs bunch)

Think you've got your shia and sunni the wrong way round there  

[Flipside]

This is like the pronunciation of Uranus when Voyager went past it, I love the way Shi'ite has change to Shia

[karajorma]

Shia is the religion so it's a perfectly valid use of the word. I think the problem is simply that most people try to write Shi'ite, end up writing sheite, think "that's not right" and then use Shia because they can't misspell it

[Turambar]

so, who knows the difference between the two?
(i do, i'm seeing if you do)

[Kosh]

Did they actually find any remains of this guy?

[Rictor]

Yeah, there are photos. His body is more or less completely intact, including his head which is remarkably whole.

Here's the picture, obviously don't click if you are easily grossed out.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/He219/notgonnadothismuchlonger/more/dingdongAZQisdead.jpg

[aldo_14]

the Saddam / shia loyalists, the Sunni groups (such as Al-Sadrs bunch)

Think you've got your shia and sunni the wrong way round there  

Oh ****, not again. 

Honestly, I wish they'd pick more different names.  Greenies and Reddies - what's wrong with that?  Nice and simple, doesn't confuzzle ole Aldo here.  Hrmph.

[Jetmech Jr.]

W00t. Bout time. Best part is, I heard it took him 10 minutes just to DIE. He was pretty much alive when U.S. forces found the body *Joy*

[Flipside]

Sorry, but I just don't consider that something to gloat over.

Removing a threat is one thing, gloating over his prolonged pain makes us no better than he is.

[aldo_14]

W00t. Bout time. Best part is, I heard it took him 10 minutes just to DIE. He was pretty much alive when U.S. forces found the body *Joy*

Imagine the same words said about, ooh, an American soldier or an Iraqi police recruit.

Lets try and keep the moral high ground, eh?

[TrashMan]

I wouldn't want to be in Bush's shoes (or any US poresident for that matter).

If you have too many soldier deaths, your public will want to crucify you.

If too many foregneirs (colateral damage) die, you are again be crucified by the media.

There's no way to make everyone happy. Franky, I don't know how US will be able to fight any wars in the future if this continues.  2000 US soldiers lost is too much foir them??
From a logical standpoint - in a war 2000 is nothing.

I understand the grieving families but bloody hell - your family/brother/father was a soldier!

[aldo_14]

I wouldn't want to be in Bush's shoes (or any US poresident for that matter).

If you have too many soldier deaths, your public will want to crucify you.

If too many foregneirs (colateral damage) die, you are again be crucified by the media.

There's no way to make everyone happy. Franky, I don't know how US will be able to fight any wars in the future if this continues.  2000 US soldiers lost is too much foir them??
From a logical standpoint - in a war 2000 is nothing.

I understand the grieving families but bloody hell - your family/brother/father was a soldier!

There is, of course, a very simple solution.........

Stop fighting pointless wars.

[Jetmech Jr.]

W00t. Bout time. Best part is, I heard it took him 10 minutes just to DIE. He was pretty much alive when U.S. forces found the body *Joy*

Imagine the same words said about, ooh, an American soldier or an Iraqi police recruit.

Lets try and keep the moral high ground, eh?

I see no reason to, considering 90% of the world doesn't seem to think we have any claim to "moral high ground" at all. I mean, just take a look at the first of the posts in this thread :rolleye:. So, you go ahead and moan and cry, while I'll take THOROUGH, and I do mean thorough, pleasure in the fact that the scumbag is gone.

[Ford Prefect]

I don't see anyone expressing sadness that he's dead. But embracing the desire to take pleasure in death and suffering is sort of corrosive to the whole "civilization" thing.

[Nuclear1]

W00t. Bout time. Best part is, I heard it took him 10 minutes just to DIE. He was pretty much alive when U.S. forces found the body *Joy*

Imagine the same words said about, ooh, an American soldier or an Iraqi police recruit.

Lets try and keep the moral high ground, eh?

I see no reason to, considering 90% of the world doesn't seem to think we have any claim to "moral high ground" at all. I mean, just take a look at the first of the posts in this thread :rolleye:. So, you go ahead and moan and cry, while I'll take THOROUGH, and I do mean thorough, pleasure in the fact that the scumbag is gone.

I very much agree with this. Zarqawi was a disgrace to humanity, and didn't show any restraint; the man chopped off the heads of POWs, planned bombings that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and plenty of American, British, and other Coalition servicemen, and didn't even show restraint when he bombed three targets in his own homeland.

Thoroughly disgusting animal. I'm very much comforted in the fact that he fittingly suffered a death much like he caused thousands of others to suffer. Proves that there's still justice in the world.

There's no way to make everyone happy. Franky, I don't know how US will be able to fight any wars in the future if this continues.  2000 US soldiers lost is too much foir them??
From a logical standpoint - in a war 2000 is nothing.

Very true. 2000 casualties is hardly anything, considering the US has been involved in far more costlier battles over shorter time spans (i.e. 7000 Marines in a matter of weeks at Iwo Jima, 12500 in two months at Okinawa), but it's the media coverage that has been primarily responsible for causing American queasiness when it comes to war. Add to that the Baby Boomer generation that seems interested in doing the complete opposite of what the greatest generation of Americans did...

[Ford Prefect]

Very true. 2000 casualties is hardly anything, considering the US has been involved in far more costlier battles over shorter time spans (i.e. 7000 Marines in a matter of weeks at Iwo Jima, 12500 in two months at Okinawa), but it's the media coverage that has been primarily responsible for causing American queasiness when it comes to war. Add to that the Baby Boomer generation that seems interested in doing the complete opposite of what the greatest generation of Americans did...

Yeah, damn the media for reporting Vietnam as the cluster **** it really was. And as for the Baby Boomers, it's their amnesia regarding Vietnam that provided a lot of the support for this war.

[Nuclear1]

Very true. 2000 casualties is hardly anything, considering the US has been involved in far more costlier battles over shorter time spans (i.e. 7000 Marines in a matter of weeks at Iwo Jima, 12500 in two months at Okinawa), but it's the media coverage that has been primarily responsible for causing American queasiness when it comes to war. Add to that the Baby Boomer generation that seems interested in doing the complete opposite of what the greatest generation of Americans did...

Yeah, damn the media for reporting Vietnam as the cluster **** it really was. And as for the Baby Boomers, it's their amnesia regarding Vietnam that provided a lot of the support for this war.

And now it's the Baby Boomers' nostalgia for Vietnam that's bogging us down. Thirty-eight years ago in Vietnam, the media may have been right in reporting that the government and the military were messing up the war. The US military was still trying to fight the same war that they fought in Korea and WWII, where there was a known, defined enemy with a conventional military. The Communists in Vietnam changed the rules by fighting a guerilla war that the United States wasn't prepared for, and the media made that clear when the Tet Offensive came.

Now the media's doing the same thing with Iraq, even though the military has made good progress with training the Iraqi military and setting up a government voted in by the Iraqi people in a hostile zone. I don't particularly agree with a lot of the reasons that the war was initiated, but I even more disagree with the media and the "peace demonstrators" at home vehemontly criticizing the military, especially when they have neither the time, training, nor ability to determine if the war is winnable or not. I'd be glad to leave that to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the people trained in strategic thought.

It should be the media's job to report what's happening in the world, not selectively picking what it wants to tell the public and then telling the American people want to think (that goes for both the conservative and liberal media). But yes, that's just my idealistic view of the world taking over again...

[Ford Prefect]

I don't know about you, but I don't see peace demonstrators attacking the military; I see them attacking the government for its irresponsible use of the military. I think there's actually been relatively little hostility towards the military itself from the American public. I mean, one of the big catch phrases for the anti-war movement is "bring the troops home". People aren't against this war because they think the military is incompetent; they're against it because it was a stupid, stupid thing to do. It's the civilians in the Pentagon and the White House who are, and should be, coming under the heaviest fire.